August 13, 2020
The Hon. James Lankford, Chairman
The Hon. Christopher A. Coons, Vice Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Ethics
220 Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Request for Investigation of the Honorable Ron Johnson
Dear Senators Lankford and Coons:
American Oversight1 and the Center for Media and Democracy2 hereby request that the
Senate Select Committee on Ethics (the “Ethics Committee”) initiate an investigation into
apparent violations of the Senate Ethics Code by Senator Ron Johnson in his role as Chairman of
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (“HSGAC”).
The public record is now replete with evidence that the Committee “investigation” that
Senator Johnson has initiated into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s conduct of United
States policy towards Ukraine is an abuse of his official position and a misuse of official
resources to launder and promote fully discredited political attacks on the presumptive
Democratic presidential nominee in the months and weeks before the general election. The
seriousness and unprecedented nature of this abuse is underscored by Senator Johnson’s
coordination of this effort with foreign state actors who have themselves declared their intent to
harm Vice President Biden’s candidacy. Their intent has been confirmed by the United States
intelligence community as an effort to influence the outcome of the election.
The Ethics Committee must investigate Senator Johnson’s ongoing effort to use his
official Senate position to improperly engage in partisan political activity and to accept and
legitimize foreign efforts to influence an American election. President Trump infamously

1

American Oversight is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to exposing and fighting corruption in
government.
2

The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog dedicated to exposing the undue
influence of special interests on our democracy.

 declared that he would “listen” if foreign actors offered him “dirt” on his political opponents.3
Senate rules prohibit Senator Johnson from following the president’s lead.
I.

Factual Background
A. The Investigation is Pretextual and Purely Political

Senator Johnson has not publicly described the scope of the investigation he is
undertaking (the “Investigation”). However, his purpose can be discerned from two letters that
Senator Johnson co-wrote with Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Finance Committee, to
the Department of State requesting documents and testimony, as well as a convoluted defense of
his various investigations set forth in an open letter on August 10, 2020.
In the first letter, sent on November 6, 2019, while the House impeachment inquiry was
ongoing, Senators Johnson and Grassley described their objective as an effort “[t]o better
understand what actions, if any, the Obama administration took to ensure that policy decisions
relating to Ukraine and Burisma were not improperly influenced by the employment and
financial interests of family members.”4
In the second letter, dated April 30, 2020 (the “April 30 Letter”), Senators Johnson and
Grassley said that their respective committees were “continu[ing] to examine potential conflicts
of interest relating to the Obama administration’s policy decisions with respect to Ukraine and
Burisma Holdings.”5 The April 30 Letter also expanded the Investigation to include another
subject unrelated to Vice President Biden’s work in Ukraine: “the extent to which representatives
of Burisma used individuals with close personal connections to high-level officials within the
Obama administration to gain access to and potentially influence U.S. government agencies.”6
In his more recent third, open letter, Johnson described his Ukraine investigation as
relating to two allegations that have been discredited by the United States intelligence
community:
The investigation by my committee of allegations of conflicts of interest within
the Obama administration related to Ukraine policy and of allegations of
corruption within the Obama administration affecting the 2016 election is focused

3

Kevin Liptak, “Trump says he would accept dirt on political rivals from foreign governments,” CNN (June 13,
2019), https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/donald-trump-abc-political-dirt-foreign-country-rivals/index.html.
4

Ltr. to Hon. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, at 3 (Nov. 6, 2019), available at
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-11-06%20RHJ%20CEG%20to%20State%20%20Burisma%20Inquiry.pdf.
5

Ltr. to Hon. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, at 1 (Apr. 30, 2020), available at
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-0430%20RHJ%20CEG%20to%20State%20(Ukraine%20Follow%20Up).pdf
6

Id.

2

 on documents and officials from U.S. government agencies and a U.S. Democratlinked lobbying firm.7
It is impossible to miss Senator Johnson’s intent. The discredited concerns around
Burisma and potential corruption in Ukraine more than four years ago are unique in only one
respect: a connection—albeit attenuated and unsubstantiated—to Vice President Biden, via his
son Hunter Biden, and the presidential campaign of 2020.
B. The Investigation Has Already Been Discredited
To the extent the Investigation relates to allegations against Vice President Biden, the
allegations already have been exposed as wholly false.
The sworn testimony of Administration officials most knowledgeable about policy
toward Ukraine and Vice President Biden’s role in it uniformly refuted these claims. In fact, nine
witnesses with expertise in policy related to Ukraine testified that they were unaware of any
evidence to support an allegation of improper conduct by Vice President Biden; to the contrary,
they confirmed that Vice President Biden executed official U.S. policy—one that was uniformly
shared by international partners. The president’s legal team offered no evidence to the contrary.8
Numerous media outlets have also determined that there is no basis in fact to support any
allegations of wrongdoing by Vice President Biden in connection with Ukraine.9
In fact, Senator Johnson well knows that the allegations against Vice President Biden are
false because Senator Johnson himself supported the very conduct that is alleged to have been
corrupt—the conditioning of international aid on the dismissal of Viktor Shokin, then Ukraine’s
prosecutor general, who had been actively blocking anti-corruption reform efforts in Ukraine.10
In February 2016, Senator Johnson, a member of the Senate’s Ukraine caucus, signed a letter to
then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko “urging” him “to press ahead with urgent reforms to

7

Open Letter from Sen. Johnson, Aug. 10, 2020, available at https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000173-d624-dbfea97f-dfff64110000; see also Ryan Goodman & Asha Rangappa, “How Sen. Ron Johnson’s Investigation Became an
Enabler of Russian Disinformation: Part I,” Just Security, Aug. 11, 2020, https://www.justsecurity.org/71947/howsen-ron-johnsons-investigation-became-an-enabler-of-russian-disinformation-part-i/ (hereinafter
“Goodman/Rangappa”) (analyzing myriad flaws and misstatements in Johnson’s August 10, 2020 letter).
8

See Philip Bump, “Trump’s impeachment defense offers two weak — and contradictory — arguments for
investigating Biden,” Wash. Post ( Jan. 30, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/30/trumpsimpeachment-defense-offers-two-weak-contradictory-arguments-investigating-biden/.
9

E.g., Glenn Kessler, “A Quick Guide to Trump’s False Claims About Ukraine and the Bidens,” Wash. Post (Sept.
27, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/27/quick-guide-trumps-false-claims-about-ukrainebidens/; Daniel Dale, “A Readers’ Guide to Fact-Checking Trump’s Ukraine Controversy,” CNN (Oct. 7, 2019),
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html.
10

Impeachment Depositions Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, H. Comm. on Oversight, and
H. Comm. on Foreign Affairs (Oct. 15, 2019) (deposition of George Kent, p. 336) (“Prosecutor General Shokin was
an impediment to the reform of the prosecutorial system, and he had directly undermined in repeated fashion U.S.
efforts and U.S. assistance programs.”); Impeachment Hearings (Nov. 21, 2019) (testimony of David Holmes, pp.
63-64).

3

 the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”11 And just last October, Senator Johnson
reaffirmed his support for the dismissal, saying, “The whole world… felt that this, that Shokin
wasn’t doing a [good] enough job. So we were saying hey you’ve ... got to rid yourself of
corruption.”12
Therefore, the official congressional record is clear that Vice President Biden was not
“influenced in any way by financial or personal motives in carrying out his duties as Vice
President.”13
Perhaps recognizing the factual failings of an Investigation into the conduct of Vice
President Biden, Senator Johnson has more recently focused his investigation on Burisma, the
Ukraine natural gas company, and Hunter Biden’s role on the board of that company. Yet this
new allegation only underscores the improper purpose of this inquiry. The record established in
this matter shows there was no ongoing investigation by Shokin’s office—or any Ukrainian
investigator—into Burisma when Shokin was dismissed.14 Shokin’s removal and replacement
with a new prosecutor general therefore could have only increased the chance that Ukraine
would pursue corruption investigations, including potentially against a company like Burisma or
its corrupt founder.15
Given that it has been established that Vice President Biden’s conduct was based solely
on official United States policy and supported by our allies (and by Senator Johnson), it is clear
that the added focus on the private business dealings of the Vice President’s son is no more than
another attempt, after the collapse of the charges against Vice President Biden, to fabricate
information for use in the upcoming presidential election—now less than three months away.
With its factual and logical underpinnings stripped, the legitimacy of the Investigation as
anything more than a targeted partisan political effort collapses. No matter how broad the Senate
investigative power is, it does not encompass such conduct. As the Supreme Court has held,
Congress may only investigate in furtherance of its constitutional duties; it is not empowered to
11

Office of Senator Rob Portman, Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to
Help Ukraine Take on Corruption (Feb. 12, 2016),
https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucusreaffirm-commitment-help.
12

Zack Budryk, “GOP Senator Says He Doesn’t Remember Signing 2016 Letter Urging ‘Reform’ of Ukraine
Prosecutor’s Office,” The Hill (Oct. 3, 2020), https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/464302-gop-senator-says-hedoesnt-remember-signing-2016-letter-urging-reform-of.
13

Impeachment Hearings (Nov. 19, 2019) (testimony of Kurt Volker, p. 20); id. (“I have known Vice President
Biden for 24 years. He is an honorable man and I hold him in the highest regard.”).
14

Impeachment Hearings (Nov. 21, 2019) (testimony of David Holmes, p. 64) (“My understanding is the Prosecutor
General at the time, Shokin, was not at that time pursuing investigations of Burisma or the Bidens.”); Impeachment
Depositions (Nov. 15, 2019) (deposition of David Holmes, pp. 36-37) (understanding allegations that the United
States had pressured Shokin to close an investigation into the founder of Burisma to be false). Johnson’s August 10
letter refers to a British investigation into the founder of Burisma for conduct when he was a government official,
not a Ukrainian investigation.
15

Impeachment Hearings (Nov. 15, 2019) (testimony of Marie Yovanovitch, p. 50); Impeachment Hearings (Nov.
21, 2019) (testimony of David Holmes, p. 64).

4

 use its investigative power for other purposes, much less for “expos[ure] for the sake of
exposure.”16 Congress has no “general’ power to inquire into private affairs and compel
disclosures.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 179 (1927). The Court emphasized just
weeks ago, congressional “[i]investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of
the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.”17
As described below, the only purported “evidence” that runs counter to the official record
is offered by shady foreign individuals with declared partisan ends and apparent ties to Russia.
C. Senator Johnson’s Political Abuse of his Official Position Involves
Knowing Facilitation of Illegal Foreign Interference in the Upcoming
Election
The renewal of these political attacks has also provided a vehicle through which
interested foreign parties, including malign foreign actors, can funnel disinformation into our
political processes and public discourse in order to exert improper and illegal influence over the
American presidential election.
Several current and former Ukrainian officials with known ties to Russia have overtly
declared their intentions to assist President Trump’s reelection effort.18 Remarkably,
notwithstanding their publicly stated intention to interfere in the presidential election, Senator
Johnson has reportedly met or communicated with at least two of these foreign persons.19
Moreover, Senator Johnson appears to be using materials provided—or made publicly
available—by them as part of the Investigation. Although he has recently declared that he has not
directly received documents from these foreign actors, he has not disavowed his reliance on
information made public by them.20 Notably, in a recent letter to Democratic congressional
leadership, Johnson acknowledged that he has met with a foreign individual about the Ukraine
investigation.21

16

United States v. Watkins, 354 U.S. 178, 200 (1957).

17

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ____ (2020), slip op. at 12 (quoting with approval Watkins, 354 U.S. at
187).
18

Christopher Miller, “Rudy Giuliani’s Crew is Still Trying – and Failing – to Smear Joe Biden,” Buzzfeed News
(July 24, 2020), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-joe-biden-smearefforts. Several of these individuals previously peddled false Russian propaganda that Ukraine interfered in the 2016
election, which has been rejected by all facets of the United States government.
19

Id.

20

In his August 10 open letter, Senator Johnson cites a January 2017 Politico article as the source of his allegations.
That article, which relied on suspect Ukrainian sources, subsequently has been discredited. See
Goodman/Rangappa, supra note 7.
21

Sen. Johnson & Sen. Grassley Letter to Sen. Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Sen. Warner and Rep. Schiff, Aug. 4,
2020, https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/majority-media/johnson-grassley-call-for-pelosi-schumer-schiff-warnerto-stop-playing-political-games-with-election-security-intelligence.

5

 That Ukrainian official is likely Andriy Telizhenko, who has publicly declared his
intention to push damaging attacks against Vice President Biden via congressional
Republicans.22 Among other things, it has been reported that:
•

Telizhenko met with Senator Johnson and HSGAC staff in July of 2019 to discuss
the false Biden allegations.23

•

In September 2019, Senator Johnson wrote a letter to Attorney General William
Barr referencing Telizhenko’s allegations.24

•

Earlier this year, Senator Johnson expressed an intention to request documents,
and potentially testimony, from Telizhenko.25 But, after an FBI
counterintelligence briefing related to foreign efforts to influence our election,
several senators urged Senator Johnson to abandon those efforts because of
concerns regarding the credibility and intent of Telizhenko.26

•

In May, Telizhenko released recordings of alleged conversations between Vice
President Biden and former Ukrainian President Poroshenko.

Another Ukrainian official with Russian ties is Andriy Derkach, a member of the
Ukrainian parliament who was formerly aligned with the pro-Russia Party of Regions and who
graduated from the KGB academy in Russia. On August 7, 2020, in a statement from NCSC
William Evanina on election threats, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
specifically confirmed that “pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading
claims about corruption—including through publicizing leaked phone calls—to undermine
former Vice President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party.”27
In addition, public reporting, including Derkach’s own website, indicates that:

22

Id.

23

Elise Viebeck and Dalton Bennett, “Sen. Johnson, ally of Trump and Ukraine, surfaces in crucial episodes in the
saga,” Wash. Post (October 28, 2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-johnson-ally-of-trump-andukraine-surfaces-in-crucial-episodes-in-the-saga/2019/10/28/40b9e44c-f684-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html.
On July 11, Telizhenko posted a picture with Senator Johnson on his Facebook page.
24

Senators Charles Grassley & Ron Johnson, Ltr. to U.S. Attorney General William Barr (Sept. 27, 2019), available
at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-johnson-renew-inquiry-doj-actions-reportedelection-meddling.
25

Andrew Desiderio & Betsy Woodruff Swan, “Senators Clashed over Hunter Biden Probe in Classified Briefing,”
Politico (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/hunter-biden-senate-probe-162118.
26

Id.

27

Statement by NCSC Dir. William Evanina: Election Threat Update for the American Public (Aug. 7, 2020),
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/item/2139-statement-by-ncsc-director-william-evaninaelection-threat-update-for-the-american-public. Notably, Senator Johnson’s 11-page August 10 open letter does not
reference this public statement by the ODNI, which directly implicates his investigation.

6

 •

In December 2019, after meeting with Rudy Giuliani in Ukraine, Derkach
confirmed that he had sent materials to Republican members of Congress,
including Senator Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In
February, Graham warned: “Any documents coming out of the Ukraine against
any American, Republican or Democrat, need to be looked at by the intelligence
services who have expertise—I don’t—because Russia is playing us like a
fiddle.”28 More recently, Senator Graham has referred inquiries about these
materials to Senator Johnson and HSGAC.29

•

In May, June, and July, Derkach released tranches of heavily edited recordings,
purportedly of conversations between Vice President Biden and President
Poroshenko in 2016.30 Notably, the content of the recordings is entirely consistent
with the uniform belief of impeachment witnesses and independent fact-checkers
that Vice President Biden acted at all times in furtherance of the national interest
and in accordance with official U.S. policy.

•

On June 22, Derkach held a press conference during which he levied a number of
baseless accusations about Vice President Biden and other American officials.31
Two days later, Senator Johnson reportedly sent letters requesting interviews and
documents from two former State Department officials who were discussed at
Derkach’s press conference.32 According to Politico, the Investigation is relying
upon a Ukrainian document that was not mentioned in either of Senator Johnson’s
letters to the State Department.33

•

On July 9, after Derkach released a third tranche of recordings, the Foreign
Intelligence Service of Ukraine issued a statement: “Russian special services
continue to use their capabilities in Ukraine to conduct information operations
against the Ukrainian state,” which it described as “an attempt to use Ukraine for
external influence on the development of political events in the world.”34 At least

28

David Morgan, “Justice Department Receiving Information on Bidens from Giuliani: Senator,” Reuters (Feb. 9,
2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-ukraine-graham/justice-department-receiving-information-onbidens-from-giuliani-senator-idUSKBN2030QP.
29

Natasha Bertrand, Andrew Desiderio & Kyle Cheney, “Democrats: Packets Sent to Trump Allies are Part of
Foreign Plot to Damage Biden,” Politico (July 23, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/23/democratsletters-to-trump-allies-are-foreign-plot-to-damage-biden-380217.
30

See, e.g., supra notes 12-18.

31

Records of Conversations Testifying to International Corruption, YouTube (June 22, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei6O14Td89g.
32

Natasha Bertrand, “Inside the Biden Campaign’s Pushback Against Foreign Interference,” Politico (July 20,
2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/20/biden-foreign-russia-kremlin-373277.
33

Id.

34

Foreign Intelligence Service of Ukraine, Statement (July 9, 2020), available at
https://szru.gov.ua/en/news/news/the-statement-by-the-foreign-intelligence-service-of-ukraine.

7

 one major Ukrainian newspaper connected this official announcement to
Derkach.35
Finally, a third Ukrainian official, Oleksandr Onyshchenko, has also declared his
intention to assist President Trump in the upcoming presidential election. Onyshchenko is a proRussia former member of the Party of Regions in Ukraine who was charged in 2016 with
embezzlement and, according to former President Poroshenko, holds a Russian passport.36
In May, Onyshchenko told the Russian state news service Sputnik that he had turned over
materials about Vice President Biden to Trump allies, including to Senator Johnson’s
committee.37 “Because of the coronavirus, they are waiting,” Onyshchenko told Sputnik. “But in
September, closer to the elections, they will begin to use them more.”38
Concerns about Senator Johnson’s reliance on possible disinformation from malign
foreign actors—particularly Russia—recently intensified on July 20, 2020, when four members
of the “Gang of Eight” sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray. In that letter, the
members—who have access to the most sensitive intelligence available—requested an allmember defensive counterintelligence briefing connected to a “concerted foreign interference
campaign, which seeks to launder and amplify disinformation in order to influence congressional
activity, public debate, and the presidential election in November.”39 The letter included a
classified addendum, which reportedly raised specific concerns that the Investigation was relying
on disinformation provided from foreign sources and referenced the packages that Derkach
himself acknowledged sending in December to Republican congressional leaders.40 NCSC
Director Evanina’s August 7 statement confirming intelligence about Derkach’s efforts to
interfere in the election on behalf of Russia only adds to the growing body of evidence that
Senator Johnson’s investigation is simply a tool to launder Russian disinformation into the public
in order to influence the election.

35

“Foreign Intelligence Service Warned of Russian Information Operations Against Ukraine,” Ukrainskaya Pravda
(July 9, 2020), https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2020/07/9/7258781.
36

Paul Sonne, Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh Dawsey & David L. Stern, “Hunt for Biden Tapes in Ukraine by Trump
Allies Revives Prospect of Foreign Interference,” Wash. Post (July 1, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/for-months-trump-allies-hunted-for-tapes-of-biden-in-ukrainenow-theyre-turning-up/2020/06/30/f3aeaba8-a67b-11ea-8681-7d471bf20207_story.html.
37

Id.

38

Id.

39

Ltr. to Hon. Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (July 13, 2020), available at
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20200713_big_4_letter_to_fbi_director_wray__defensive_briefing_signed.pdf.
40

Natasha Bertrand, Andrew Desiderio & Kyle Cheney, “Democrats: Packets Sent to Trump Allies are Part of
Foreign Plot to Damage Biden,” Politico (July 23, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/23/democratsletters-to-trump-allies-are-foreign-plot-to-damage-biden-380217. Senator Johnson’s spokesman told Politico that
HSGAC has “never received nor would we ever collect information from this individual or individuals like him.”

8

 II.

The Investigation Violates Senate Rules and Standards

As described above, Senator Johnson’s Investigation lacks merit, clearly exceeds
constitutional limits on the Senate’s investigative authority, and facilitates foreign efforts to
unlawfully influence an American election. It also violates the law and Senate rules and
standards.
Senate Rules do not allow Senator Johnson to launder derogatory political opposition
research though the Senate. As detailed above, the information Senator Johnson has received
lacks any legitimate legislative value. Some of it has been provided by individuals whose stated
purpose is for the information to be used to influence the U.S. presidential election. The U.S.
intelligence community has now confirmed that motivation. The Investigation itself—focused on
one person and continuing despite extensive contradictory evidence—likely exceeds the Senate’s
constitutional investigative power as articulated by the Supreme Court. Finally, the official
congressional record and credible public reporting is replete with evidence that resolves the
stated questions of the Investigation. Any claimed remnant of investigative value is pretextual
and overwhelmed by the clear political purpose of the information.
The Senate’s standards of conduct proscribe member conduct that reflects “discredit” on
the institution. As this Committee explained in its most recent Ethics Manual:
Certain conduct has been deemed by the Senate in prior cases to be
unethical and improper, though such conduct may not necessarily have
violated any written law, or Senate rule or regulation. Such conduct has
been characterized as ‘improper conduct which may reflect upon the
Senate,’ and has provided the basis for the Senate’s most serious
disciplinary cases in modern times.
The Senate did not attempt to delineate all the types of conduct or the
guidelines which should be followed in determining which actions by a
Member would constitute ‘improper conduct’ reflecting on the Senate.
The drafters of the resolution [creating the Ethics Committee] intended
that ‘improper conduct’ be cognizable by the Senate when it was so
notorious or reprehensible that it could discredit the institution as a whole,
not just the individual, thereby invoking the Senate’s inherent and
constitutional right to protect its own integrity and reputation.41
The Ethics Manual explains further that this overarching standard of conduct is
comprised of “a body of unwritten but well-established norms of Senate behavior,” and is an
essential complement to the “written standards (i.e., rules and statutes)” governing Member
conduct.42
41

United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Senate Ethics Manual (2003), Appx. E, available at
https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=F2EB14E3-1123-48EB-9334-8C4717102A6E
(hereafter “Ethics Manual”).
42

Ethics Manual at 8.

9

 In addition, by Joint Resolution, both Chambers of Congress have adopted a Code of
Ethics for Government Service, requiring officeholders to “[p]ut loyalty to the highest moral
principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party or Government department,” and to
“[u]phold th[is] principle, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.”43 The Senate has
resolved to comply with this Code of Ethics, and has granted this Committee jurisdiction to
enforce it.44
As detailed below, Senator Johnson’s conduct contravenes these standards; it also
contravenes specific laws that limit the use of government resources to official purposes and bar
their misuse for campaign-related purposes.
The Senate has confronted similar behavior—implicating criminal and civil statutes,
Senate rules, and the Senate’s institutional bar on discrediting behavior—and has responded by
imposing discipline. For example, this Committee reprimanded and criticized Members in the
“Keating Five” case in 1991 for a brazen “linkage” of official activity to campaign fundraising
activity.45 In 1967, the Select Committee on Ethics investigated the first case of improper
conduct involving Senator Thomas Dodd who was censured for converting campaign funds to
personal use.46 The same set of ethical standards bar campaign use of staff resources and of the
franking privilege.47 These standards apply with no less force where a Senator is engaging in the
same abuse of authority and resources but in favor of another federal candidate—in this instance,
the President of the United States, who is a candidate for reelection in three months.
Senator Johnson’s sham investigation parrots thoroughly debunked attacks that the
President has levied against Vice President Biden for purportedly corrupt conduct in carrying out
American policy toward Ukraine. As the Committee is well aware, these attacks did not
withstand factual examination in the course of the House impeachment inquiry of 2019.
Administration officials credibly testified that the White House’s attempts to fabricate a
corruption case against Vice President Biden were, as one senior official termed it, no more than
a “political errand.”48

43

72 Stat. B12, H.Con.Res. 175, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE72-PgB12.pdf.
44

Ethics Manual at 436; Congressional Research Serv., Senate Select Committee on Ethics: A Brief History of its
Evolution and Jurisdiction (Feb. 12, 2019), available at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30650.pdf.
45
46

S. Rept. 102-223 (Investigation of Sen. Cranston) at 20, 29-30.
Ethics Manual at 434.

47

E.g., 31 U.S.C. § 1301(a) (“Appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were
made”); United States Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Regulations Governing the Use of the Mailing Frank, S.
Pub. 107-12 (May 2001); see generally U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, “Ethics Rules: Campaign
Activity,” https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/campaign-activity; GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
PRINCIPLES OF FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS LAW 3-294 (4th ed. 2017), available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/687162.pdf.
48

Impeachment Hearings Before the H. Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence (Nov. 21, 2019) (testimony of
Fiona Hill).

10

 The Ukraine president declined to pursue that “investigation” to benefit the President’s
political interests, but Senator Johnson is now using his office to carry it forward. Most
egregiously, Senator Johnson is coordinating this effort with foreign interests allegedly tied to
the Russian intelligence community. ODNI has now publicly confirmed that these same foreign
interests are trying to interfere in the November election.
Federal law expressly prohibits foreign nationals from financing activities to influence
our elections,49 but Senator Johnson is providing Russian state interests with a platform financed
with United States taxpayer dollars and carrying the imprimatur of the United States Senate. Just
as Senate Rules prohibit Senator Johnson from engaging in campaign activities using his official
office, he cannot use his official office to do what a campaign could not.50 Senate resources may
not be used for campaign activities.51 Under the present facts, the information Senator Johnson
has received from foreign government officials qualifies as such an impermissible gift.
Though the Senate has wide latitude to conduct oversight or investigation, it has also
drawn lines to stop abuse of that investigatory power. The most famous of all Senate disciplinary
cases in the Twentieth Century involved the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy for the
recklessness and falsehoods that characterized his investigations as a committee chair into
Communist influence over the executive branch.52 The select committee formed to evaluate that
conduct described the implicated peddling of falsehoods meant to foster “public scorn and
contumely” for political ends as “reprehensible,” “inexcusable,” and ultimately censurable.53 The
committee concluded that Senator McCarthy had misused the oversight process to spread
falsehoods in service of his own political interests. Senator Johnson is abusing the same process
with similar methods in order to promote the political interests of his party’s presidential
nominee.
These circumstances call for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate and determine
the appropriate disciplinary action. Under Committee Rule 2(b), we respectfully request that the
Committee initiate an investigation into Senator Johnson’s conduct as Chairman of HSGAC and,
if such investigation substantiates the concerns raised herein, to recommend to the full Senate
appropriate disciplinary action against Senator Johnson.54
49

52 U.S.C. § 30121.

50

Ethics Manual at 27 (“If a contribution does not conform to the strictures of the Federal Election Campaign Act, it
is a gift rather than a contribution, and must be treated as such for the purposes of this Rule” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
51

See Campaign Activity, Senate Select Committee on Ethics,
https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/campaign-activity (discussing, inter alia, 31 U.S.C. § 1301).
52

Report of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Censure Charges, S. Rept. 83-2508 (Nov. 8, 1954),
at 41-61, available at https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/censure_cases/pdf/133McCarthy
Nov8_1954report.pdf.
53

Id. At 60-61.

54

As an alternative to discipline, the Ethics Committee also may criticize Senator Johnson’s conduct while stopping
short of finding alleged conduct was “improper conduct reflecting upon the Senate.” See Ethics Manual at 435. The
Ethics Committee can declare “that the conduct should not be condoned or should otherwise be criticized in a public
statement by the Committee.” Id. at 435 n.19. For example, in 2002, the Committee severely admonished Senator
Robert Torricelli for creating at least an appearance of impropriety by accepting gifts in violation of the gift rules.

11

 Conclusion
These are serious matters that warrant this Committee’s prompt attention. The
institutional interests of the United States Senate—interests that must be protected and advanced
through enforcement of the Senate’s Ethics Code—have been compromised by Senator
Johnson’s deployment of his office and committee chairmanship for purely political ends. That
he may be doing so in concert with foreign actors, publicly seeking for their own purposes to
amplify disinformation regarding the Democratic nominee for President, is behavior so
“notorious or reprehensible that it could discredit the institution as a whole.” The investigation
and prevention of such behavior is the very purpose for which this Committee was formed.

Austin R. Evers
Executive Director
American Oversight

Arn Pearson
Executive Director
Center for Media and Democracy

See David Kocieniewski, Tim Golden, Carl Hulse, “Ethics Committee Faults Torricelli on Gift Violations,” N.Y.
Times, Jul. 31, 2002, https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/31/nyregion/ethics-committee-faults-torricelli-on-giftviolations.html.

12